[Rondec]

If I remember correctly, they chose to reverse-engineer the K-mount, rather than licence it. Did they do the same with other mounts? If so, history would suggest they most likely wouldn’t licence the coatings, either.

Yes. This is the reason that sometimes when brands release a new camera, Sigma lenses suddenly stop working well with it and have to their firmware updated.

As far as lens design goes, I really think Sigma is focused these days on making lenses that maximize test chart performance over anything else. And to a great extent they have succeeded. Their bokeh isn't always the best and certainly their lenses are prone to flare, but those sorts of things don't show up much in reviews. But Pentax's coatings really are top end, even today and are a big reason that I tend to buy them over third party lenses, even when Pentax lenses are more expensive.

Anyway, I believe that Sigma's goal is to make the cheapest, test chart sharp lenses out there and anything that raises the cost and doesn't contribute to that is left by the wayside.

[xmeda]

Coatings coatings.. we are no longer in 2008 territory.

Sigma 35/1.4 is superb lens. Not only resolution, but also bokeh and image feel. Unfortunately there is no way to get 85/1.4 ART and 20/1.4 ART or 24/1.4 ART with K mount.. with IBIS that would be very cute

[Kunzite]

If I remember correctly, they chose to reverse-engineer the K-mount, rather than licence it. Did they do the same with other mounts? If so, history would suggest they most likely wouldn’t licence the coatings, either.

But in the context of "Sigma should buy Pentax", this doesn't matter.
Of course licensing coatings (what about the equipment?) is more collaboration than they did. But Sigma buying Pentax is the most extreme thing, way beyond merely licensing a technology.
My point is, let's think of the easiest ways of achieving the goal.

[reeftool]

Camera companies don't want third parties, they're rivals.

Canon even did some recent jiggery to stop non-Canon flashes working on some base models, IIRC.

They may not like them but customers always look at a thriving aftermarket of accessories as a plus in deciding on buying into a camera system. It does benefit the camera manufacturer to some degree even if a user on a tight budget buys a camera body and a Tamron or Sigma lens. In the end, I think forcing the aftermarket away from a camera will hurt them. At the time I bought my Sigma 150-500 Pentax had nothing to offer. When Pentax finally rolled out the 150-450, it's price as almost 3 times what I paid for my Sigma. In all honesty, if I was shopping for a long zoom today, I would just buy a used Nikon D300 and a Sigma and happily shoot my motorcycle racing for half the price of a lens

[totsmuyco]

3rd party accessories compliment camera manufacturers. As some of us have noted, there's a gap with what the OEM provides and what the users want. Some of us including myself are on a budget. So 3rd party manufacturers can provide what we need. Besides lenses, flash would be an example. I didn't buy an original Pentax flash as I seldom use it. I bought Yongnou instead. I paid less than half the price and so far it's serving what I need. In the end, I'm working on budgeting my cash on items of lesser importance and allocating more on items that need to be OEM.

[dicki]

maybe we can get some lenses for low Prices, now.

[RobA_Oz]

maybe we can get some lenses for low Prices, now.

Do you mean Sigma sponsoring a run-out sale on its remaining stock of K-mount lenses? I wouldn’t hold your breath.

[Mistral75]

Do you mean Sigma sponsoring a run-out sale on its remaining stock of K-mount lenses? I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Let him hold his own breath!

[pts1958]

They had the K system and had simply to apply... not very expensive to do Why ?

[mlt]

Probably putting as much resources in to the L mount as they can, have to keep up with requirements to join that alliance.

[Mistral75]

They had the K system and had simply to apply... not very expensive to do Why ?

Manufacturing costs mainly:

Sigma have to face an increasing number of mounts to manufacture their products in and it's a threat on their production costs, as Kazuto Yamaki (son of Sigma's founder and current Chairman and CEO) explained in an interview with Dave Etchells (Imaging Resource):

Dave Etchells: With so many different lens mounts and with smaller market share for each one, I was going to ask what you do about that? But it seems like the answer is that once you design short flange-back lenses for L-mount, that then you're covering other mounts easily?

Kazuto Yamaki: Yes, but still, it's challenging. It's an opportunity for us, but challenging for manufacturing. The glass is the same, but the mechanical parts are different. We need to change the setting of the machines very frequently.

Dave Etchells: Oh, yeah. It's not like you just have a lens and you bolt on the different flange, but there are other mechanical changes.

Kazuto Yamaki: Also, we will probably not discontinue our existing products for DSLRs. We'll maintain lenses for DSLRs, and also lenses for mirrorless. So again, we have to make more and more types of lens models. Then we lose efficiency and productivity in manufacturing. This is very challenging for manufacturing.

Dave Etchells: Yeah, I can imagine. Once upon a time, you just had Canon and Nikon mainly; that was only two mounts. Easy to do. But now, even though you can use the same optical design, it's still different manufacturing for each one. That's challenging.

Source: Sigma Q&A: Lots of L-mount lenses coming, as CEO Yamaki-san predicts mirrorless will take over soon

Hence the temptation to drop the under-profitable, low-rotation SKUs.

Cosina did the same when they stopped manufacturing K-mount Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses. Tamron aren't far from doing the same: their portfolio of K-mount lenses only includes three lenses, the most recent of which (Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]) was introduced more than 11 years ago.

[clackers]

The only reason why the OEMs "tolerate" the 3rd parties is because they more or less have to, from a legal point of view. As customers, choice is good because we can take what best fits our needs (or a cheaper option). As manufacturers, choice is bad... because we might choose the other product

Correct.

The most third party supported mount in the world is Canon's EF.

But it and the accompanying ETTL flash protocol has never been licensed to the other companies.

They all reverse-engineer, legal at least by US law.

Yongnuo IIRC even waited for patents to expire on the Canon fast fifty and base model RT flash then came up with their own clones.

As a niche manufacturer, Fuji would be happy if no one ever made a lens for their cameras.

[clackers]

They may not like them but customers always look at a thriving aftermarket of accessories as a plus in deciding on buying into a camera system.

Sure, but again, this is from our point of view, not from theirs.

I'd like free beer, but Guinness might object to my 'business model', RT!

[Mistral75]

(...)
As a niche manufacturer, Fuji would be happy if no one ever made a lens for their cameras.

There are plenty of X-mount lenses, albeit fully-manual ones. The only non-Fuji X-mount lenses coupled to the body are the Zeiss Touit lenses (which are also autofocus), the designer and manufacturer of which is unknown. They are made in Japan but not manufactured by Cosina. By Fujifilm perhaps?

[Dipsoid]

There are plenty of X-mount lenses, albeit fully-manual ones. The only non-Fuji X-mount lenses coupled to the body are the Zeiss Touit lenses (which are also autofocus), the designer and manufacturer of which is unknown. They are made in Japan but not manufactured by Cosina. By Fujifilm perhaps?

There is also the Viltrox 85mm lens that has AF with more coming.